The weird ideological inversion of the school reform debate

We live in a country where Creationists can run for President without being laughed out of the room, homeopathy is seen as real medicine, millions of people buy into “The Secret” that wishing for something hard enough makes it real, and the cast of the Jersey Shore is rich.

Until that changes, I find it hard to believe that we’ll be able to improve education outcomes significantly no matter how radically we reform the education system. Kids aren’t dumb. Why bother to acquire knowledge when it’s manifestly unimportant to do so in our culture?

You know who else makes this sort of argument? Every so often, National Review’s John Derbyshire will grumpily note that we have very little to show for the massive amount of money that gets spent on public education. Culture, parenting, and the heritability of intelligence do more to determine achievement than public schools ever will.

People may identify and rank different factors as important to childhood development, but these objections share a certain conservative logic. Some disparities – from socio-economic status to parenting to genetics – simply can’t be rectified by the public school system. As citizens, we just have to grin and bear it.

I’m actually sympathetic to this point of view. I think modern conservatism often loses its way by indulging in a brand of superficial managerialism – perhaps best exemplified by Newt Gingrich – that holds any number of intractable problems can be cured by sufficiently bold and decisive reforms.

But consider the implications of this thinking. I’m not the first person to point out that the logic of predetermined educational outcomes means we should be spending a whole lot less on public schools.

Moreover, liberals’ sudden enthusiasm for talking about the importance of culture, parenting, class, or whatever highlights another problem with the status quo. If liberal opposition to school reform is truly driven by a belief that our money would be better spent elsewhere – and not by the importance of protecting a favored political constituency (teachers and teachers’ unions) – I’m willing to listen to their ideas for redirecting federal education dollars. But until then, these arguments strike me as an opportunistic way to dodge public school accountability.

UPDATE: To be fair, Drum does suggest reinvesting K-12 funding in intensive early childhood education.

51 Responses

(a) the remaining education dollars were equitably distributed instead of the current system, where wealthy kids get more resources; and (b) the focus of cuts is on non-academic related activities. Why on earth tax dollars should go to pay for football and cheerleading is beyond me.

Empirically speaking, though, when education dollars are cut:

(a) the poorest districts are hit the hardest, diminishing their already limitied capacity to help out the students most likely to push past the culture into educational attainment; and (b) the programs cut tend to be the most academically related, such as the arts and debate, as opposed to meaningless ones like sports.

If I ran the teachers unions, I’d trade merit pay for equitable distribution of education dollars and seniority tenure for getting rid of sports.

Even marginal improvements are improvements! But as long as the reality of American society is that when education dollars get cut, it’s cut in the worst possible way, it’s tough to sell me on them.Report

You’re giving this Will dude way too much credit, Alex. He basically admitted he’s just going to assume liberals are arguing in bad faith until we do the truffle shuffle with just the right amount of jiggle and just the right amount of noise.

At least after assuming Drum was opportunistically dodging public school accountability, he finally decided “to be fair.”Report

I absolutely agree about spreading education dollars more equitably. When I grew up, I lived in a small, moderate-to-low income industrial city, squeezed between an affluent suburb on one side and a low income rural area on the other. The suburb spent nearly twice as much per student as my high school, and the rural school district spent even less than that. Why? Property taxes — the suburb had high property tax rates, and my school district kept getting its levies shot down. It’s absurd to see this much disparity in educational spending within a half hour drive of each other.Report

As a pencil-necked science nerd who got an honorary debate scholarship, I’d like to speak up a little bit for sports. They not only provide a good source of regular physical activity for kids who may otherwise be sitting around playing video games (not that there’s anything wrong with that, Jaybird), but they also can teach lessons about working with others, putting the collective good above one’s own glory, keeping commitments, personal discipline, etc.

If it weren’t for sports, lots of my patients would be total slugs. I’d hate to see them cut, even if I personally find them intolerable.Report

Why athletics needs to be an appendage of education is beyond me. Let townships and counties field teams. Have intramural sports sponsored by local businesses, churches, etc.

Perhaps one of the best places to start with school reform is to slowly take back responsibility away from schools and give it to parents, local associations, and communities.

Why have a school newspaper (they aren’t allowed freedom of the press anyway and receive so little funding)? Let the failing local town paper pick up some interns and have a youth/student section.

The same thing could be down with all kinds of other activities. Take away gym and lunch as well, and maybe we could get the school day down to 4/5 hours, and have the rest picked up by community organizations, whether they are fielding after school sports, or before school activities?Report

the remaining education dollars were equitably distributed instead of the current system, where wealthy kids get more resources; and

Out of curiosity, does anyone have any good numbers on this? I’ve heard enough references to this that I don’t vigorously doubt it’s true, but it’s contrary to what I’ve seen where I grew up (the outskirts of a large city in the south). Looking at education-dot-com, my well-to-do district spends $7,400 per-pupil, another wealthy district that just built a huge athletics complex that seats over ten thousand spends $6900 per pupil. The local urban district spends $8500.*

Which is to say, the problem at least in that neck of the woods is not that all of the money is going towards schools for the privileged, but rather that children of the less privileged cost more to educate. Even within Big Urban School District, the wealthy schools spend less.

Where I’m from is a part of my anonymity, so I won’t divulge it here, but if there is skepticism of this I will gladly email it some links to one of the Gents who will verify it.Report

To test and see what spending looked like outside of the urban/suburban dynamic, I looked at the school districts serving the two poorest counties in the state (among the poorest in the country) and they were $8500 and $9800.Report

Before you assume that there must be waste in the urban district because they are spending more and getting less (I am assuming your urban district has poorly-performing schools), you may want to make sure that that number does not include restricted funding. We have this debate quite a bit in the district where my children go to school, which has a disproportionately larger population of socio-economically disadvantaged student than the surrounding wealthy districts. Our per-pupil spending appears quite high when you consider restricted and unrestricted funding together, and people argue against levies for this reason, saying that there must be waste. However, a good chunk of that money is restricted for use by programs that serve the large population of children receiving free and reduced-cost meals, health care (including counseling services) and transportation costs for low-income students, and costs to educate special needs students (of which we also have a disproportionately large share compared to surrounding districts). When you take away these funds and consider unrestricted funding, we have actually one of the lowest per-pupil funding rates in the county. I’d be willing to bet that your local urban district is in a similar situation.Report

To be clear, Kitty, I was not intending to suggest that there was waste. Poor children cost more to educate. I was just objecting to the notion that “rich schools get all the money” because that doesn’t correspond with the statistics I have seen.

Interesting point about restricted/non-restricted spending. If anyone has any good statistics on how much is spent on education rather than peripherals, that would be awesome.Report

At the time Savage Inequality was written, I don’t doubt that there were some pretty big disparities. They existed in my home state for a while. But at some point the numbers started inverting (I think spending at urban schools started going up a lot while those at suburban schools were going up slower).Report

Actually, you’re misrepresenting the argument on the liberal side. The point isn’t that educational outcomes can’t be improve, it’s we’re unlikely to change the gap between races and classes any time in the near future (ie. this generation) no matter how hard we try.

The main purpose of the education system should be is to educate students as best it can. Ideally, that means everyone learns, but not everyone learns at the same rate.

Now, the problem with the ed reform crowd is they propose judging schools only on whether they can consistently narrow the achievement gap. This research suggests that doing so is an impossibility, and that you’re simply setting public schools up to be judged as failures, thereby opening the door to further privatization. Which in the mind of conservative pundits, politicians, and intellectuals is a feature, not a bug.Report

Also, to add. Yeah, taking x amount of money from the DOE and shifting it to WIC, early childhood education, or prenatal care would be more effective. But of course, what would even be more effective is taking x amount of money from the DOD and doing that or closing tax loopholes so we have x amount more revenue.Report

Greg makes a good point. The problem isn’t about school funding. It’s the cultural atmosphere within poor communities. And those simply aren’t going to change unless poverty is lessened. Unfortunately poor people worry less about their kids’ homework and more about a dozen other poverty-specific issues.Report

And it’s cyclical, because communities that aren’t well-educated don’t value education as much, and don’t instill those values as widely, and then their children don’t become educated and don’t value education as much and don’t instill those values in their children who then don’t become well-educated and then don’t instill those values in their children…

There’s exceptions to this rule of course. And spending money and getting good teachers in poor areas can help. But it’s a long process with no quick fixes.Report

E.D. , That’s why I am in favor of busing. Studies show that socio-economic integration of schools has positive effects on lower income students and zero negative effects on higher income students. Unfortunately it’s politically radiocactive and very hard to implement without pissing off pretty much everyone involved.

I don’t quite follow this though:

“And spending money and getting good teachers in poor areas can help.”

You keep mentioning more school spending – are you talking about teacher salaries or something else? As for getting good teachers into poor areas – you can thank the unions for problems with that. School districts that are economically diverse should have the discretion to move teachers around as they see fit just like most large companies do with their employees. The best teachers should be dispersed across a district not bunched up in the most desired schools. Unions make that nearly impossible.

If you’re talking about better teachers in districts that are uniformly poor (often in rural areas) then it’s much harder. Try convincing a quality teacher to move to Eastern Kentucky for five years to teach in a poor rural school in a county with a huge meth problem and an average education attainment of 9th grade. It’s like missionary work. Teach for America might be a good resource but you already said you don’t like those types of programs.Report

Of course, as a nation we do seem to value economic utility and productivity above all else. Maybe if certain communities were given the authority to gut 8-12 and replace it with training aimed at skilled labor or professional development. We could have two diplomas, a GED and a GDD (general development degree).Report

I had a girlfriend who worked in a very inner-city school while we were dating and I remember her coming home one day and saying, “One of my students (this was second grade) saw his Uncle get shot and killed this weekend at a backyard barbeque. Now what are the chances that he’s going to learn anything today?”Report

What is implicated in the conclusion that education is a bad investment in terms of making social equity possible over generations are the very terms by which we attempt to justify socioeconomic inequity in society: the claim of equal opportunity. We claim that this is a society of opportunity, even equal opportunity, that equality of outcome is never guaranteed, but that if you work hard you can achieve a good life on par with those who had advantages over you. But for a half century or more now, this claim has hinged on our ability to provide those without social advantage the skills necessary to overcome that disadvantage by building up value in a knowledge and info-skills economy.

I won’t make the direct connection for anyone else about the viability of whose political outlook is more dependent on this story being a plausible one (to say nothing of bearing out in practice). But I will observe that the more the bloom comes off that rose in terms of public credence in that story, the more pressure we can expect our political system to come under to address in direct ways the underlying inequality which we’ve relied upon the idea of equalizing opportunity through skills transfer to justify to ourselves and to those on the short end of it. And if the truth is that even the potential efficacy of formal or semi-formal k-12 education (which is the the actual existing mechanism on which this story is largely based in practice) for effecting equalization of opportunity is in fact greatly exaggerated or indeed essentially nonexistent, then a widespread acceptance of that truth will greatly hasten the wilting of this social fiction as a sustaining myth of our social fabric.

Perhaps ultimately, because the ruling class has seized control of a sufficient 1 – (1/n) of the wealth, means of mass communication, resources, and other levers of power in society, the resulting political force will be so weak that no one not facing it as an obstacle will actually have to do anything other than merely “grin and bear” an inequality in their midst that is newly laid bare and against which they lack any convincing social justification. But perhaps it will not be only that weak. Either way, I am not at all sure that the author here has entirely thought through whose political bread is more buttered by the melted goodness that is the story we tell ourselves about the work done socially and politically by a notion of the potential efficacy of “education” against the actual material and social inequality that characterizes class relations in this country today, and against the potential political weight of the historical reality that put it into place.Report

Educational reform, from this Liberal/Progressive perspective, says certain problems have emerged because the educational paradigm has not advanced much beyond John Dewey. In fact, they have regressed to a place not even John Dewey would accept.

I don’t believe technology is the answer, but it is a fine replacement for pedagogy in certain rote material. Such subjects would include basic mathematics from the simplest addition up through the binomial theorem and perhaps farther. Let us concentrate there, for it is mathematical literacy which affects uptake of all the sciences.

Math would be a computer program, where students would solve problems at one level, the first would be integer addition producing sums less than 10. Each answer would be logged: the teacher would watch each student as he progressed. Answer ten problems correctly at a given level and a reward is given. The student is publicly “promoted”. He progresses on to sums of less than 20, introducing the concept of carrying the ten. Thus it proceeds, with problems from previous levels periodically inserted as refresher material. On it goes, with subtraction, multiplication and so forth.

When a student gets stuck at a given level, say, at fractions, a common barrier, the teacher will intervene, demonstrate how the solution may be obtained. Back the student goes, insight gained. Obviously some students will do better than others. In my scheme, they will not be held back by the slower students without the sociological problems associated with “skipping” a grade.

Homework disappears in my scheme.

A common complaint teachers have is “teaching the test”. Every such test can be reduced to a training program such as I have described, with learning material attached. Where the material is not reducible to right and wrong answers, the students are made to write brief essays, summing up what they have learned. Thus, state mandated material can be efficiently taught and teachers can respond as quickly as you and I respond to email.

In mountain climbing, expeditions are composed of climbers of similar skills, led by a climber superior to everyone else on the rope. The current model of 30 eight year olds being taught by one teacher was the best we could come up with before the computer. But the One Room Schoolhouse worked exactly like this. Older students taught younger students. The current model is simply too slow and inefficient. If the proposition is value for money, the problem of time cannot be avoided: we are wasting time teaching a child who already knows. Worse, the student who does not understand what he’s being taught, having been hauled into algebra with an imperfect understanding of fractions, will always fail.

More than stuffing your own head full of facts, the real world values the ability to transmit a skill to someone else. This, too, is learning.Report

It’s interesting that Drum and Derb agree on the data with regard to K-12, but disagree so completely as to what the numbers say about early intervention. Derb thinks Head Start is a bigger sham than K-12 ever dreamed of being, and he says the numbers are on his side.

My oldest did Head Start and Jump Start. I think it was a very good program and she got a big lead on her classmates. The problem as I see it is that there is no continuation once they get into first grade so everything levels out.Report

Agree, Will. I believe he’s also a big fan of Charles Murray. I never wanted to think God would be that cruel–deliberately creating an intellectual underclass, but he certainly does have the stats to prove his thesis. Regardless, I find it unacceptable. I’ve seen far too many exceptions and just can’t believe hard, tenacious, effort can’t produce extraordinary results. Am I being hopelessly naive?Report

Here’s what can be said about Head Start. It really does prepare children for learning. You can demonstrate the difference for about five subsequent years, each year, a little less. With at-risk kids, it makes a huge difference. Gets them through grade 4 pretty much on track.Report

I like some of Blaises’ ideas. However, before we do the BlaiseP thing let’s go back to the fifties. Nothing more technical then paper, pencil, a workbook, and plenty of rote, and plenty of phonics. In my own case the Sisters of Notre Dame and their no nonsense approach provided the incentive to FOCUS, when my mind would drift to episodes of Captain Video and the Video Rangers. And, we don’t need to teach to no stinkin’ test nor have teachers illustrate how to put a rubber on a banana, or any of the other librul bs. We go back and do it the way it really worked. The problem is, of course, the under-society: the poor, the ghettoized, the drug addict/alcoholic parents, and single parent families. These are indicators of some form or another of social decline and good luck with that, because this is, pretty much, the problem. Deal with this bs and I think the vast majority of kids want to learn, want to achieve, and want to please their parents.Report

What is implicated in the conclusion that education is a bad investment in terms of making social equity possible over generations are the very terms by which we attempt to justify socioeconomic inequity in society: the claim of equal opportunity. We claim that this is a society of opportunity, even equal opportunity, that equality of outcome is never guaranteed, but that if you work hard you can achieve a good life on par with those who had advantages over you. But for a half century or more now, this claim has hinged on our ability to provide those without social advantage the skills necessary to overcome that disadvantage by building up value in a knowledge and info-skills economy.

I won’t make the direct connection for anyone else about the viability of whose political outlook is more dependent on this story being a plausible one (to say nothing of bearing out in practice). But I will observe that the more the bloom comes off that rose in terms of public credence in that story, the more pressure we can expect our political system to come under to address in direct ways the underlying inequality which we’ve relied upon the idea of equalizing opportunity through skills transfer to justify to ourselves and to those on the short end of it. And if the truth is that even the potential efficacy of formal or semi-formal k-12 education (which is the the actual existing mechanism on which this story is largely based in practice) for effecting equalization of opportunity is in fact greatly exaggerated or indeed essentially nonexistent, then a widespread acceptance of that truth will greatly hasten the wilting of this social fiction as a sustaining myth of our social fabric.

Perhaps ultimately, because the ruling class has seized control of a sufficient 1 – (1/n) of the wealth, means of mass communication, resources, and other levers of power in society, the resulting political force will be so weak that no one not facing it as an obstacle will actually have to do anything other than merely “grin and bear” an inequality in their midst that is newly laid bare and against which they lack any convincing social justification. But perhaps it will not be only that weak. Either way, I am not at all sure that the author here has entirely thought through whose political bread is more buttered by the melted goodness that is the story we tell ourselves about the work done socially and politically by a notion of the potential efficacy of “education” against the actual material and social inequality that characterizes class relations in this country today, and against the potential political weight of the historical reality that put it into place.Report

Let’s face it, the main aim of all education reforms from the left are to get “at risk children” into the hands of state funded programs as soon as possible. The right’s response would probably say to that, you can’t substitute a village for a family, so let’s not waste funds on such a day dream.Report

Right, totally agree with you. But the left (to which I in part belong) usually pushes to get a hold of these kids earlier in the day, like with Kid Stop, or earlier in life, with pre-school and state day care.Report

“I think modern conservatism often loses its way by indulging in a brand of superficial managerialism – perhaps best exemplified by Newt Gingrich – that holds any number of intractable problems can be cured by sufficiently bold and decisive reforms.”

Is it wrong of me to miss country club conservatives? Where did they all go?Report

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.